Bush also was one of the first to suggest these
huge economic bailouts, abandoning small government conservative principles when it was no longer politically damaging to do so, and too late, might I add. And there was no oversight. None. And his bailout package did not help us at all.
With Obama's package, the money will have oversight and might actually create jobs. In fact it is guaranteed to create jobs, and that's already much more than Bush's bailout did. If you're going to spend all that money, and as a small government type, I disagree with, at least spend it wisely.
That's why if you're going to have a government, it should be responsible for saving people's lives, not lining the pockets of the rich. Stimulating the economy with trickle down economics and tax breaks to the rich doesn't work, but helping cover the cost of healthcare does several things; encourages people to go see a doctor when they need to, the doctors actually get paid and the hospital doesn't go under, and the money the doctors and hospitals take in gets spent, to a large degree in our local economy.
Point blank, giving tax breaks to people who invest in stocks and buy expensive foreign things, does not stimulate the economy. Giving tax breaks to people who spend basically all the money they have, does stimulate the economy. Giving aid to people who will use it on doctor's bills, which often times go unpaid and have to get covered by local governments ANYWAY, is actually a more efficient use of the money and improves our nation's healthcare.
I'd prefer that over pork barrel spending such as bridges to nowhere, which Palin supported before she opposed. I always found it funny that Palin called the democrats "socialist" when her own state redistributes oil money to the residents of that state. In fact, her town that she was the mayor of, Wassilla, Alaska, doesn't actually function as the administration of fire departments and schools and so forth, basically what the government of Wassilla Alaska did was send out the oil checks, and not much else, according to the current mayor of Alaska herself.
So when you get "small government conservatives" like Bush and co. spending as much or more than "big government liberals" like Bill Clinton, and getting a lot less out of it for their trouble, and you have wingers accusing their opponents of doing something they themselves do to a much greater extent, I have to wonder why. Probably because they are the party of Rush Limbaugh, who is someone that sitting Republican senators and congressmen cannot openly criticize without being forced to apologize or become disenfranchised.
Rush, by the way, accused the Democrats of being unpatriotic and treasonous when they opposed George W. Bush in a time of war, and within Obama's first week, he was already openly expressing his desire that Obama FAIL. Forget how good it would be for the greater good of the country if Obama succeeds in turning our country around, Rush is concerned with the Republican Party, but mostly he's just concerned with himself. Numero Uno: Self-Interest.
What else could Rush possibly say and still be Rush Limbaugh? He cannot support Obama, and the Republicans have no ideas except to limit the stimulus plan and give more tax cuts, which is more of the same, ideas currently rejected by the majority of the public. So he cannot really endorse those plans as the loyal opposition either. All Rush can do is create controversy and hopefully that will generate ratings and loyal listeners, and therefore get more people out to the polls in 2012 voting Republican. In the meantime, he's totally written off the next 4 years and is actively trying to get people to not support our current president and stonewall all progress, thereby extending the depression and putting off our problems until the next Republican is in power.
It's partisanship like that that made me leave the Republican party. There is no room from
like that in America. I am registered Independent, and until the Republicans actually have a plan of action besides tax cuts (which, to be fair, were done, and they got a fair shake, and it did not solve our problems), I am going to support Obama.
Until he royally messes something up and no longer deserves our support, I am supporting him. Out of the good of our country, I am happy to see many of my fellow orgahs, especially conservatives and Republicans, giving Obama a fair chance. This is to be expected, this place is full of enlightened and fair minded people, and usually not blatant hypocrites.
Even when someone is ideologically opposed to you, if they are the leader of your country you should hope they succeed in their endeavors. I didn't like the reasons for the Iraq war, but I supported the troops and hope they all survive and come home soon. I didn't like Bush's idea for solving the social security mess, but I would have given it a chance, and I would hope he succeeded. I didn't like the use of torture in Gitmo, but I had hoped they would have used the information to stop future attacks (though I am opposed to the mantra "what is good for the many is good for us all", and diametrically opposed to the use of torture on people who never even got a trial by jury, let alone fundamental human rights) and otherwise succeeded in their endeavors to protect this nation. I didn't like the plan of action under Bush, which was fight a war and cut taxes at the same time. That made no sense. But I hoped the stimulus would turn the economy around and we would win the war too.
8 years later, that fair chance, that fair shake, that benefit of the doubt, that loyal opposition, has expired.
Obama deserves at least 4 years of a fair shake in return. And the bitter divisiveness between the parties needs to stop. I for one see no use in having political parties to begin with, but if they refuse to set minor differences in philosophy aside, they need to go to China where opposing the ruling party is a crime. Then they will understand the dangers of hyper-partisanship.
That goes for Democrats, too. Don't browbeat Republicans just for being Republican, or you turn yourselves into the very thing you claim to oppose, and I've no use for hypocrites.
Bookmarks